United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Stephanie Dawkins Davis United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge.
February 5, 2016, Jeff Spencer (“Plaintiff” or
“Spencer”) commenced this action against Paul
Arrowood, a Michigan State Police Officer (“Defendant
or “Arrowood”). Dkt. No. 1, pp. 1-2 (Pg. ID No.
1-2). His Complaint alleges two constitutional violations: an
excessive force claim and a claim of unreasonable seizure
without probable cause. Id. at 4-6.
matter is presently before the Court on Defendant's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed May 15, 2017. Dkt.
No. 25. Upon review of the pleadings, the Court finds that
oral argument will not aid in the disposition of this matter.
Accordingly, the Court will decide the matter on the
pleadings. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). For the
reasons stated more fully below, the Court
GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment .
morning of August 9, 2014, Defendant stopped Plaintiff for
driving 65 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. Dkt.
No. 25-3, p. 6 (Pg. ID 220). Plaintiff acknowledges that he
knew he was speeding at the time of the traffic stop, but
blames his speed on his downhill trajectory. Id. at
7. According to Plaintiff's testimony, the interaction
during the stop transpired as follows:
He got out of his vehicle, come up to my driver's window,
requested for my driver's license. And I asked him why I
was being pulled over, as I was being nice and calm,
wasn't swearing, wasn't cussing at him, wasn't
being hostile, nothing. He asked me for my driver's
license again. I asked him why I was being pulled over. He
said, “Can I see your driver's license?” I
said, “No, not until you tell me the reason why I'm
being pulled over.” He said, “You're not
going to give it to me.” And I said, “No, until
you tell me the reason why I'm being pulled over.”
So he opened my door up, yanked me out of the truck by my
left arm, smashed me up against the back of the cab of my
truck, threw me in handcuffs, took me back to the front of
his car, searched me, got my ID out, went into his car. About
five, ten minutes later he comes out, places a ticket down on
the hood of his car, said, “I wrote you a ticket for
doing 65 in a 55. Do you have any questions?” I said,
“Yeah. Is your badge number on there?”
Id. Plaintiff later secured an attorney to plead his
speeding citation down to a smaller infraction, a seat belt
violation, and paid $65 in fines. Id. at 12.
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) “directs that summary
judgment shall be granted if ‘there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.' ” Cehrs v.
Ne. Ohio Alzheimer's Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775,
779 (6th Cir. 1998). The Court must view the facts, and draw
reasonable inferences from those facts, in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). No genuine
dispute of material fact exists where the record “taken
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find
for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus.,
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Ultimately, the Court evaluates “whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must
prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477
U.S. at 251-52.
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts two claims against Defendant:
(1) that Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights by
using excessive force against him; (2) that Defendant
violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seizing him without a
warrant or probable cause. Dkt. No. 1, pp. 4-6 (Pg. ID 4-6).
Defendant seeks ...